Talk:Germanic kingship
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Germanic kingship Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Script error: No such module "Banner shell".
I think this needs a major re-write
The lede implies that this is an obsolete (or at least dubious) historical theory, but the main body of the article doesn't make it clear what is or is not accepted by modern historians. Indeed, it seems that the only doubts about the theory are expressed as a footnote in the lede, and the use of the word "alleged" in the first section heading. Nor is it clear if the "Later Developments" are also suspect. I think this needs to be restructured to describe:
- The known facts (or at least, the known historical descriptions of the institution).
- The 19th/early 20th century theories about the institution.
- The modern academic view (detailing both the flaws with the older research, and what people now think "Germanic Kingship" was actually like).
I'd also suggest restoring the etymology (removed a couple of years ago by an anon). IMO, the origins of the words used to describe social institutions typically indicate something about what the people who named it thought about it, or what they claimed it was, so it is relevant to the article. Iapetus (talk) 11:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)